3 ms·

How does the blockchain solve any of these issues in a way that couldn't be done with a database and a third party/escrow as normal? And it's interesting to no

How does the blockchain solve any of these issues in a way that couldn't be done with a database and a third party/escrow as normal? And it's interesting to note that no-one (as far as I'm aware) is doing this. Blockchains have been around for a decade and escrows are still going strong - I don't see any movement to adopt blockchain for this.

hanniabu 4y ago
How does email solve anything that couldn't be done via snail mail?
- mrep 4y ago
  Email is like a 100,000 times faster than snail mail. Proof of work is like 0-1,000,000 times more expensive due to duplicating work than a database.
  - hanniabu 4y ago
    You're comparing the end user to the one doing maintenance. Maintaining an email server is way more work than sending snail mail too. For the end user sending a transaction is quicker and cheaper than getting your lawyers to draft contracts, maintaining your own books, paying an accountant or someone else to manage/balance the books, coordinating a deal/terms with them, etc. Also there's Proof of Stake which is much more efficient than Proof of Work.
quartz 4y ago
Sounds like you've already got it right there: implemented well a decentralized blockchain is basically a 3rd party as a transactional service (which through programmability can act as a ledger or escrow). The commenter up above is directly referencing where existing 3rd party / escrow services are pretty terrible today and they're certainly not easily accessible to the general public or your average piece of computer code. A lot of the pre-boom blockchain contract excitement really was as simple as "turn the awful banking middlemen into code so we can get the advantages of them programmatically."
- cduzz 4y ago
  A blockchain in this context is much worse than a 3rd party because there's nobody to sign a contract, arrest, subpoena, or bring a lawsuit against. "It's math, bro" isn't actually comforting if the contents of the distributed database are actually in question, perhaps because of mistakes, shenanigans or misbehavior. No sane risk assessment of "our company depends on this being correct and consistent" is going to sign up for this.
- marcus_holmes 4y ago
  Yes, but no-one is doing it. Which would point to "this problem isn't as amenable to tech as our initial impression of it would suggest".

hanniabu 4y ago

How does email solve anything that couldn't be done via snail mail?

mrep 4y ago
Email is like a 100,000 times faster than snail mail. Proof of work is like 0-1,000,000 times more expensive due to duplicating work than a database.
- hanniabu 4y ago
  You're comparing the end user to the one doing maintenance. Maintaining an email server is way more work than sending snail mail too. For the end user sending a transaction is quicker and cheaper than getting your lawyers to draft contracts, maintaining your own books, paying an accountant or someone else to manage/balance the books, coordinating a deal/terms with them, etc. Also there's Proof of Stake which is much more efficient than Proof of Work.

quartz 4y ago

Sounds like you've already got it right there: implemented well a decentralized blockchain is basically a 3rd party as a transactional service (which through programmability can act as a ledger or escrow). The commenter up above is directly referencing where existing 3rd party / escrow services are pretty terrible today and they're certainly not easily accessible to the general public or your average piece of computer code. A lot of the pre-boom blockchain contract excitement really was as simple as "turn the awful banking middlemen into code so we can get the advantages of them programmatically."

cduzz 4y ago
A blockchain in this context is much worse than a 3rd party because there's nobody to sign a contract, arrest, subpoena, or bring a lawsuit against. "It's math, bro" isn't actually comforting if the contents of the distributed database are actually in question, perhaps because of mistakes, shenanigans or misbehavior. No sane risk assessment of "our company depends on this being correct and consistent" is going to sign up for this.
marcus_holmes 4y ago
Yes, but no-one is doing it. Which would point to "this problem isn't as amenable to tech as our initial impression of it would suggest".